Sheshbazzar

This man from long ago, a prominent Christian Church Father and Saint, is witness to what he and his contemporary Christians actually believed and taught.
Fabricated and latter interpolated and 'scripture' can never erase that genuine ancient and historical testimony.

BUSTED!

Iskander

Ok, you win.

Sheshbazzar

A form of 'christ'-ianity would have existed from at least the time of the introduction of The LXX Bible, as the Greek word for 'anointed' and 'messiah' was and is 'christos' (shortened and capitalized in English as 'Christ'.)

Any Greek reading, Greek speaking individual, from around around 300 BCE on, (and even long before) who held a belief in The 'Anointed' One or The 'Messiah' would have confessed a belief in 'Ho Christos' that is to say; 'The Christ'.
What is recognized as traditional 'Christianity' has very ancient roots. There would have been hundreds of thousands of 'Joshua' The 'Christ' believers long before
'The 'Joshua' The Christ' of 'Christian' legend was ever 'born'.
What transpired latter was only a continuation of, and in addition to this ancient 'Christology'.

aa5874

But, now it has been brought to my attention that even if the author of the 2000 word argument in 'AH' 2.22 PUBLICLY LIED when he was arguing AGAINST the HERETICS of the 2nd century that he was LYING based on the PREMISE that the HERETICS of the 2nd century did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline writings.

So whether or not John the disciple and the other apostles did or did not tell people in Asia that Jesus was about 50 years when he suffered, the very PUBLIC argument AGAINST the 2nd century HERETICS is a confirmation of NO PUBLIC knowledge of Acts, Paul and the Pauline writings.

The BUST is TOTAL.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Historically Bogus and are COMPILATIONS of FRAUD, FORGERIES AND FICTION.

yalla

Well in Melito's case its a bit more specific than a generic continuation of an ancient theme or motif.
Here is an extract [with bold for emphasis] from his apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

"For the race of the pious is now persecuted in a way contrary to all precedent, being harassed by a new kind of edicts62 everywhere in Asia. For unblushing informers, and such as are greedy of other men's goods, taking occasion from the orders issued, carry on their robbery without any disguise, plundering of their property night and day those who are guilty of no wrong.

If these proceedings take place at thy bidding,63 well and good.64 For a just sovereign will never take unjust measures; and we, on our part, gladly accept the honour of such a death. This request only we present to thee, that thou wouldst first of all examine for thyself into the behaviour of these reputed agents of so much strife, and then come to a just decision as to whether they merit death and punishment, or deserve to live in safety and quiet. But if, on the contrary, it shall turn out that this measure, and this new sort of command, which it would be unbecoming to employ even against barbarian foemen, do not proceed from thee, then all the more do we entreat thee not to leave us thus exposed to the spoliation of the populace.

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians;65 and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired66 possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son,67 if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus; to which also thy more recent ancestors paid honour, along with the other religions prevailing in the empire. A very strong proof, moreover, that it was for good that the system we profess came to prevail at the same time that the empire of such happy commencement was established, is this-that ever since the reign of Augustus nothing untoward has happened; but, on the contrary, everything has contributed to the splendour and renown of the empire, in accordance with the devout wishes68 of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines. They, too, are the source from which it has happened that the lying slanders on those who profess them have, in consequence of the senseless habit which prevails of taking things on hearsay, flowed down to our own times.69 But the course which they in their ignorance pursued was set aside by thy pious progenitors, who frequently and in many instances rebuked by their rescripts70 those who dared to set on foot any hostilities against them. It appears, for example, that thy grandfather Adrian wrote, among others, to Fundanus, the proconsul then in charge of the government of Asia. Thy father, too, when thou thyself wast associated with him71 in the administration of the empire, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any measures adverse to us: among the rest to the people of Larissa, and of Thessalonica, and of Athens, and, in short, to all the Greeks. And as regards thyself, seeing that thy sentiments respecting the Christians72 are not only the same as theirs, but even much more generous and wise, we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee."

Sheshbazzar

So 'christ'-ianity evolved among the 'barbarians' (evidently combined with a large measure of 'chrest'-ianity) and expanded and evolved independent of the old time Hellenistic Jewish and Gentile ideas regarding the 'Ho Christos'.

And whatever 'doctrine' it was that these 'barbarians' believed or taught, made them 'to differ' and thus become targets of persecutions by others not of the same persuasions.
Really nothing too amazing about that.

There were a lot of differences between the various 'christ' cults, with each branding the others as being 'heretical', and outside of what was specifically written we do not know what their various 'doctrines' really were at that time. (and much of what was written has either been tampered with or is found under cross-examination misrepresent 'heretics' and their actual Doctrines, beliefs, and practices)

Meltito's complaint to Marcus Aurelius in no way changes what is clearly revealed to have been the then common Christian beliefs within Irenaeus writings.

Or perhaps I am missing the point of your posts?
With quotation of such large blocks of texts it is difficult to determine what it is that you are intending to communicate.
Would you care to summarize and clarify whatever point it is that you wish to make?

yalla

Melito appears to be placing the development of christianity as a philosophy during the reign of Augustus.

He specifically, as a second century christian himself, refers in the passage to 'our doctrines' which he identifies as a 'religion' that is currently being persecuted by Rome.
The last sentence specifically refers to Christians [remember this is, allegedly, written in the late second century circa the time of Irenaeus].
In short it appears that Melito is under the impression that Christianity developed some 20 years earlier or more than the orthodox histoy claims and thus is in synch with the claim of Irenaeus that alleged JC was older than orthodoxy claims.
Not that either has specific informed knowledge but it suggests that alternative traditions to the gospel orthodoxy were circulating in Asia regarding the origins and dating of christianity and there was a disparity between orthodoxy as we know it and that the gospel traditions and dating had not yet been set in stone, the battle against alternative views within the christian movement was not yet over, hence, among other examples, Irenaeus' "AH".
The extract above is further example that, as mountainman puts it above, there is 'monumental mistakes with the chronology' [which later got pretty much erased out by the church] and supports, possibly, your contention above, in #58, that conventional time frames had not yet achieved their later dominance.
Chritianity is still being formed.

aa5874

Melito is NOT in synch with "Against Heresies" at all. Your claim is totally erroneous. In "Against Heresies", the birth of Jesus is LOCKED at 1 BCE-1 CE.

Jesus was BAPTIZED by John when he was about to be 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius in "Against Heresies".

The 15th year of Tiberius is about 29 CE.

Examine Against Heresies" 2.22
Examine 'Against Heresies" 3.14.3
The BIRTH of Jesus in "Against Heresies" is LOCKED down to 1 BCE-1 CE

In order for Jesus to have been about 50 years old when he was crucified he would have to be living in the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE.

Melito is NOT in synch with "Against Heresies" at all.

yalla

He and Melito are in synch in that both [appear to] disagree with the orthodox time scale.

Sheshbazzar

Thank you yalla.
These 'alternative traditions' and 'alternative views' were what the emerging 'orthodox' normally came to identify as being 'heretical' teachings.
In this case the crucifixion tradition which Irenaeus evidently held, would be expected to be accounted as highly heretical by latter orthodox ideas and standards.

To wit; the latter orthodox claimed a 1st century CE origin for the Gospels, Acts, and Paulines.
And that these texts were the standard and universal informants of all who were of the Christian religion.
IF these 'inspired' NT traditions and writings had existed from as early in Christianity as the orthodox claimed, there would have been no Christians who would not have been aware of their content.
Irenaeus's arguments, circa 180 CE, in quite obviously representing a different tradition, one seriously lacking conformity to these ostensibly well known writings, demonstrate the falsity of orthodox claims.

It would be expected that such non-conformity to the orthodox 'versions' of these 'sacred' texts would have resulted in 'Adversus Heresies' being proclaimed heretical, and Irenaeus himself declared a 'heretic'.
That this never happened is all the more the amazing, when one considers the history of the Church in readily identifying even past Popes as being 'heretics' post-humously
Irenaeus, in spite of this glaring departure from standard Orthodox tradition and teaching, became, and remained as a 'Saint'.

Something very significant must have transpired post-180, that served to save Irenaeus's bacon from the frying pan.
I tend to believe it was his required -penance- to take up the task of putting into a completed written from, for the first time ever, the orthodox variation of the Gospels, with a fabricated 'Acts of the Apostles', so conceding to the reactionary orthodox demands, and so appeasing, supporting, and establishing the legitimacy of orthodox claims to 'the Holy Roman church's doctrine of Apostolic succession, and ROME alone's full doctrinal authority through Peter and 'Paul', as opposed to his former claims of following a TRADITION handed down from John.

Effectively, this Christian Father from Lyons, Gaul (Lyons France) in the midst of his production of AH, 'converted' to the then current Roman 'catholocisim' which held to a significantly different TRADITION ('Petrine') than the one he had formerly been familiar with.

Looks to me like the Church of Rome pulled the strings and Irenaeus danced, and danced hard for the rest of his life.




.